Background
The Michigan Department of Health and Human Services petitioned for protective proceedings after the child was born positive for amphetamines, methamphetamine, cocaine, benzoylecgonine, and THC. The mother admitted the petition’s allegations. During the case, her identified barriers to reunification included substance abuse, emotional instability, deficient parenting skills, housing and transportation problems, criminality, and other stability concerns.
The mother missed 53 drug screens, tested positive for methamphetamine, cocaine, and THC when she did submit to testing, and failed to complete important assessments or otherwise meaningfully participate in services. She last saw the child in April 2025 and was incarcerated for a second time during the proceedings. Although she testified that she was ready to pursue sobriety and requested more time, the trial court found statutory grounds for termination and concluded that termination served the child’s best interests. On appeal, the mother challenged only the best-interest determination.
The Court’s Holding
The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the trial court did not clearly err by finding, by a preponderance of the evidence, that termination was in the child’s best interests. The record supported findings that the mother had disengaged from services, failed to develop a bond with the child, continued to struggle with substance abuse, lacked housing and employment, engaged in criminal activity, and was unlikely to remedy those problems within a reasonable time.
The appellate court recognized that the child’s placement with a relative weighed against termination, but concluded that the trial court properly considered that circumstance and still found termination warranted. The child had spent her entire life outside her parents’ care, was thriving with a relative caregiver who provided stability and wanted to adopt her, and needed permanence rather than further delay while the mother attempted to begin addressing longstanding barriers.
Key Takeaways
- Once statutory grounds for termination are established, the best-interest inquiry focuses on the child’s needs rather than the parent’s request for additional time.
- Relative placement weighs against termination but does not prevent it when the full record shows that termination better serves the child’s need for stability and permanence.
- A parent’s missed drug screens, continued positive tests, lack of participation in services, prolonged absence, and failure to establish a stable home may support a finding that termination is in the child’s best interests.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates that Michigan courts may terminate parental rights despite a child’s successful relative placement when the relative seeks adoption, guardianship is not a viable option, and the parent has made little progress toward reunification. It also underscores the deferential clear-error review applied to trial courts’ fact-intensive best-interest determinations.